Perhaps, Nancy Pelosi Needs A Lesson
On The US Constitution: Just The
Threat of Impeachment Is Key To Stopping A President Who Would Be King

William Schmidt,
- Tiger Software's Creator
(C) 2007 William Schmidt, Ph. D. - All Rights
Reserved. No reproductions of this blog or
quoting from it
without explicit written consent by its author is
permitted.

Just The Threat of Impeachment Is Key To Stopping
A President Who Would Be King

Impeachment is a central part of the US Constitution. The founding fathers had
good reason
to know how
readily Kings ran roughshod over legislative assemblies everywhere. They knew first
hand
about the
arrogance of executive power. John Nichols' book The
Genius of Impeachment makes this
very clear.
Just the possibility of impeachment is a check on an otherwise runaway
President.

What is she waiting for? On October 17th, Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from
last month's record low
for a Zogby poll of 29 percent. A paltry 11 percent gave Congress a positive grade,
tying last month's
record low. "They tell us they want action on
health care, education, the war and
immigration, but they
don't believe they are going to get it."Following
their usual pattern, no
question about impeachment
was included!

"Nichols tells us that our obligation is to a nation and its constitution, not to a
man, a
political party,
or a policy, that impeachment is the sole device we have to check the excesses of an
executive, that
even the threat of impeachment in the past has reigned in presidents who forgot or sought
to stretch their
constitutional limits. He refers to all nine presidents who
were considered for impeachment
charges.
... He chastises Democrats who ... (give way ) to the popular and inaccurate notion
that criticizing
the president about Iraq will make them appear weak on national security."

"The biggest skeptics of wartime presidents and
promoters of the impeachment threat
were, according
to the author, Republicans for whom he heaps praise and accolades.
Congressman Abraham Lincoln, challenged President Polk for
sending troops into Mexico and occupying it. TheodoreRoosevelt challenged Woodrow Wilson when he
targeted the censorship, arrest, and deportation of his
critics: 'To
announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the
President,
right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.' Dwight Eisenhower stated: 'The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let
the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We
should take
nothing for granted."
( http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Impeachment-Founders-Cure-Royalism/dp/15955814055
)

Nancy Pelosi Gives in without A Fight

Pelosi had hardly become Speaker of the House of Representatives,
when in a gesture
of seeming cooperation
- she uttered her now famous line, "impeachment
is off the table". Why did she
do this so gratuitously?
Even if she needed Congress to spend six months gathering evidence that might
be used.in an
impeachment, why did she rule it out. Just the very
threat of it is key to maintaining
constitutional checks
and balances. But Pelosi just flat-out took impeachment
"off the table" right
from the start. Why?
It's interesting to speculate. We probably can never become cynical
enough.
So, this is a useful
exercise.

Was there some hidden quid pro quo? Did George Bush give her some consideration that
she never
mentioned?

Did he tell her he had something on her and so she was blackmailed into making that
famous statement?

Did the fact that she had voted for the making war on Iraq hang over her head so much
that the Act of
Impeachment constituted an extreme personal embarrassment and amounted to
a telling indictment of
her own failed judgement?

Is leaving George Bush in office a political calculation she has made that lets the
Democrats saddle the
Republicans with his cast iron political weight as long as possible?

Since she is in next line to become President if Bush and Cheney are removed, does she
feel it improper for
her to try to remove them directly?

Is she unwilling to affront or offend the American Power Elite. Big campaign contributors
must not be offended. The
media moguls must not be offended. This is the reason often given when
one asks why there are not more
polls on impeachment.

Is she a follower, not a leader? Does she require 67% of the polls to favor
impeachment first?

Motivations are difficult to decipher. It could be any of these things,
something I've
not listed,.or a little bit
of all these things. She's not talking. And that is troubling to the grass
roots.
It is a big factor in why
Congress now has a lower approval rating than George Bush, which is
down to that hard core
between 25% and 32%.

Books will certainly be be written about her decision not to try to remove
Bush. The
removal of Bush is quite
popular, not that polls should decide anything in an "indirect" democracy.

Impeachment Polls: 43% in Favor

How can a country be run by a President that 43% want impeached? The public's
response
seems contradictory,
but a lot depends on how the question is asked and where you are in the country..

The latest CNN
(9/7/07) polls state that61% of Americans
feel Bush's policies are taking America in
the wrong direction;

that only 48% have
confidence (8/5/07) in the Democrats in Congress under Nancy Pelosi as
she
opposes but does not
seek the impeachment of Bush; and

But contradictorily, on
11/4/05, a Zogby poll found 53% of Americans
said "if it is found
that President Bush did
not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress
should hold him
accountable through impeachment."

On 1/16/06, a Zogby
poll asked a question relating the NSA wiretapping scandal to impeachment:
"If President Bush
wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree
or disagree that
Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.
" 52% said
yes, 43% said no. http://democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

Bush is, of course, much more popular in the South, but more Red State voters have
a negative
impression of him than positive. His base is breaking away, One in 4
Republicans
give him
unfavorable ratings. In the West and Central/Great Lakes, a 52% majority favors
impeachment.
In the East 49% favor impeachment. In the South the number drops sharply to
34%.